this country is messed up

[TheLegendOfMart]

Forget it this is neither the time nor the place.

Rules are rules, just because he volunteered for the military doesn't mean he should be exempt.

 

[Amp34]

Interestingly I though public opinion was against the war in Iraq, but actually it was marginally for

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/03/remembering-iraq/

Opposing the Iraq war has been called Charles Kennedy's finest hour, and in the end the public were on his side. For many people, Iraq is all they can remember about the Labour government of 1997-2010. It has tainted Tony Blair's legacy, and in the run up to the 2015 general election it made Labour cautious of defending its record.

Though it has been controversial for over a decade, the invasion was actually popular at the time. In 2003, YouGov conducted 21 polls from March to December asking British people whether they thought the decision by the US and the UK to go to war was right or wrong, and on average 54% said it was right.

But more than 10 years of opposition is a long time, and many people now remember things differently. Now only 37% of the public say they believed military action against Saddam Hussein was right at the time, instead of the 54% recorded at the time.

The two groups do not completely overlap – respondents younger than 30 today would have been under 18 in 2003 and so were not surveyed by YouGov at the time, and another segment of the population will have passed away since then. However, in the 2015 survey young people do not fall clearly on either side of the debate, and the age groups who were represented in 2003 now all tend to say the war was wrong.

Recent research by YouGov America reveals an even more dramatic effect in the US. 63% favoured sending ground troops into Iraq according to a February 2003 Gallup poll, however in 2015 only 38% recall supporting the military operation.

Either way, should it be easier for spouses to immigrate to the UK, yes, but no I don't think military members should get special treatment in these circumstances.

 

[V F]

There's a difference between disliking them and thinking they shouldn't get special privileges....

They fight unjust wars and sign up to do so, no one forced them to join the forces.

Soldiers/Armies don't willingly start wars. Their bosses are the ones that is in power. Politicians start wars. Soldiers are sent in by politicians to try and clean up their mess. Generals have been forced to step down because politicians can't handle the truth on the battlefield. Or likely it isn't going the way the politicians want.

I mean for crying out loud, a freaking shop steward was in charge of the Ministry of Defence as well as a postman who was the Home Secretary.

Why was their a vote to green light air strikes for Syria not that long ago? A useless mission because Cameron was being left out.

I get that we should look after the ones who are maimed and bear mental scars but they shouldn't just use "but I served your country" line whenever something doesn't go their way.

We don't look after them though. There are lots of ex military that are homeless as well as the Help for Heroes that was created to help them. Not a peep comes out of the establishment. Unless it is a photo opportunity.

Wow.

I find your post instulting beyond belief. It is not the soilders who send them to fight its you. With the goverment you voted for. Most sign up to escape what life dealt them others too see the worldand better themselves, others because they want the duty and honour that comes with it.

I am proud to have served and done my bit and left a better man for it.

Plus there are lots of men and women who sign up, not for war that some seem to think. I.T. skills, intel, engineers, medics and other skills. I really love it when some members of the public think the military is all about guns and killing. Gung-ho and all that.

That and there are some who have been in the military for a long time and never been in war. I love how some people always try to put people in little boxes. All those evil military personnel, eh TheLegendOfMart.

 

[SPG]

And yes military personnel should be allowed to bring there wives in. It is a very small number and a small price to pay and with service for your country you should get perks like this.

 

[Tosno]

This is two separate limited leave to remain visa's, one for 6 months and the other for five years.
Currently, if a British citizen marries someone, they go for a 2 year LTR visa, then an ILR, under both of which you have the right to work also.
I don't see a massive difference in the process. The only visa you can't work under is a fiancée visa, once you have married here, you can get the LTR and work.

The difference is the EU citizen doesn't have to earn £18,600 a year, he can earn £1.86 and wont be refused a visa, he wont be paying £1000 for a visa, he wont have any overcrowding reports on his home (or even if he has one at all)his wife wont need to speak any English at all and she wont need any medical checks.

 

[Amp34]

The question you need to be asking Tonso is "Why".

Who have the government decided people need to earn £18,600 a year to look after their spouse?

Why have the government decided they need to check and see if you can actually house the person(s) you want to bring over?

Why should the person coming over have a medical check (which is standard for most western countries I thought - definitely so for the US, Australia and Canada)? If they fail are they not allowed in or is it just to know what they are dealing with (TB, HIV etc).

Why does it cost £1000 - That ones probably fairly easy, I'm sure there are plenty of people working on the application that need to be paid as well as phone calls, reports from other countries etc..

EDIT: Just out of interest did she need a full medical or just a chest X-Ray/TB test?

 

[Tosno]

I've asked why many times Amp34

Why doesn't a foreign EU citizen need to earn 18,600 for his foreign spouse, yet a British citizen does. Yet if the British citizen is disabled and can not work, he doesn't need to earn 18,600, so 18,600 isn't really a thing, just a barrier to healthy British citizens.

Why don't they check EU citizens that are more likely to be overcrowded

Why can EU citizens bring anyone without medical checks, again they the EU citizen and spouse are more likely to have TB, HIV ect

Why don't EU citizens have to pay £1000 (I'd gladly pay £2000 for a more human check, not failing for supplying a business English qualification) Why is the cost of the British visa in American dollars? Making it that bit more expensive with currency conversions.

In the case of my wife she couldn't have a X-ray as she was pregnant, a sample of her spit had to be grown for TB and she had a full medical. Of course only the very expensive private American Clinic in ST-Petersburg would do.

 

[muon]

What are you talking about? The UK can't dictate what other EU countries have as rules without conceding more power to Brussels and building EU wide immigration rules, something that would be very unpopular across the EU and the UK.

In fact until recently, other Western European countries were laughing at how lax our own procedures were.

EU rules are not easier. Some countries within the EU have more lenient rules for various reasons. The UK shouldn't attempt to match the rules of these countries, nor can they deny freedom of movement within the EU for people with the correct Visas and leave to remain.

 

[Tosno]

What are YOU talking about?

 

[muon]

What are YOU talking about?

Why does an EU citizen need to earn £18,600 to come to the UK?

Under what rules they became an EU citizen or equivalent in the other country has what to do with the UK exactly? What authority does the UK have?

Use your brain for a second and think about why it happens or can happen.

 

[Tosno]

That's the whole double standard, he can come with his foreign non EU wife as a penniless tramp not speaking a word of English. Yet a British EU citizen can't come to his own country with his foreign non EU wife unless he earns 18,600 and a thousand pounds sticker in her passport. It's quite odds on who will be the burden to the state.

 

[muon]

That's the whole double standard, he can come with his foreign non EU wife as a penniless tramp not speaking a word of English. Yet a British EU citizen can't come to his own country with his foreign non EU wife unless he earns 18,600, its quite odds on who will be the burden to the state.

What do you want done about it?

Everyone is telling you that is the way it is.

Secondly you are deliberately ignoring the fact that most EU nations have rules that are actually very similar to the UK.

 

[stewski]

Your a idiot and a troll.

Do you the generals sit in a roo.m and say lets go to war here and crack on with it.

it's you're

 

[Tosno]

What do you want done about it?

Everyone is telling you that is the way it is.

I know how it is? I'm the one saying it what I want done is equality, British citizens get upgraded to EU citizens level or EU citizens downgraded to ours. But alas I guess we will always be 2nd class in our own country.

 

[muon]

I know how it is? I'm the one saying it what I want done is equality, British citizens get upgraded to EU citizens level or EU citizens downgraded to ours. But alas I guess we will always be 2nd class in our own country.

You see a post like that makes it clear you don't actually understand the issue. No one is being treated differently by the UK.

An EU country with stricter rules could use the same flawed logic to say UK citizens get preferential treatment in their country.

 

[Boycey0211]

I know how it is? I'm the one saying it what I want done is equality, British citizens get upgraded to EU citizens level or EU citizens downgraded to ours. But alas I guess we will always be 2nd class in our own country.

Your point wasn't about EU citizens though was it, it was about you non-EU wife having issues, which is the same as the OP link.

So 'upgrading' to EU level is a pointless argument isnt it? If you had an EU partner you never would have had this issue in the first place.

I'm not saying that you should have either, just that you're raising a bit of a non issue to have a moan about it, which was a fair point originally but now its going round in circles.

 

[timmeh]

Wasn't there a loophole where the British Citizen could go and live in another EU country for 6 months and then move back to the UK and bring their non-EU spouse with them, completely by-passing the British visa laws?

EDIT: Here and it's 3 months, not 6.

EDIT2: I'm not sure whether this has been changed now, sorry if it's been brought up already, I haven't read every single page.

 

[muon]

Wasn't there a loophole where the British Citizen could go and live in another EU country for 6 months and then move back to the UK and bring their non-EU spouse with them, completely by-passing the British visa laws?

How will the Non-EU spouse get a proper Visa? If I had to guess, I can't see the French government (or any tbh) granting a visa to the spouse of a British citizen. They would point you to the British process.

 

[timmeh]

How will the Non-EU spouse get a proper Visa? If I had to guess, I can't see the French government (or any tbh) granting a visa to the spouse of a British citizen. They would point you to the British process.

The spouse doesn't move to the EU country, just the British Citizen.

 

[muon]

The spouse doesn't move to the EU country, just the British Citizen.

So the spouse is already in the EU? How do they get into the EU in the first place?